PDA

View Full Version : Sun In Mawson, Antarctica?



vasotech
2011-Jun-28, 03:36 AM
Greetings,

You can clearly see what appears to be the Sun Rising here in this video.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/mawson (<-Video is from June 25, 2011).


This site shows the Mawson dates

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=1031

Jun 25, 2011 Down all day
Jun 26, 2011 Down all day
Jun 27, 2011 Down all day
Jun 28, 2011 Down all day
Jun 29, 2011 Down all day

So, the sun should not be out yet. But it's there.

Selenite
2011-Jun-28, 03:39 AM
Are you asking if it's odd that the sun isn't in the sky during the Antarctic winter? It is winter in the Southern hemisphere.

vasotech
2011-Jun-28, 03:43 AM
No... did you watch the video? The sun IS rising when it is NOT supposed to be...

Solfe
2011-Jun-28, 03:45 AM
The angular diameter of the Sun is 30 degrees or so. So if the Sun is .5 degrees below the horizon, most of the sun is visible.

vasotech
2011-Jun-28, 03:47 AM
Can you explain this further? I hate to sound stupid with this...

But to an astro-newb, I see A. sun rising B. data saying sun should not rise.

Selenite
2011-Jun-28, 03:53 AM
According to some of the still pictures they posted that week there is some sunlight, although it looks more like twilight.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/mawson/this-week-at-mawson/page?id=41399&st=Mawson&dt=MjAxMS0wNi0yNA==

Solfe
2011-Jun-28, 03:57 AM
Well, I am engineering student, not an astronomer but...

The sun is 30 degrees wide and your data says two things, first the sun is - .3 degrees from the horizon. So it rose 29.7 degrees of its width ABOVE the horizon and is visible.

The other half of your data that is confusing is the lack of sunrise and sunset times while the sun is clearly visible in the image.

The Sun was on the horizon line the entire time it was visible and technically neither rose or set completely.

Strange
2011-Jun-28, 03:57 AM
Can you explain this further? I hate to sound stupid with this...

But to an astro-newb, I see A. sun rising B. data saying sun should not rise.

The height above the horizon is given in degrees; at that time, the center of the sun is less than half a degree below the horizon:

25 Jun 2011 Down all day 12:51 0.4 below 152.063
wBut the sun is 30 degrees across, Which means that nearly half the sun's disk will be above the horizon.

Celestial Mechanic
2011-Jun-28, 04:45 AM
The Sun is NOT 30 degrees across, it averages about 32 minutes of arc across, or a little more than 0.5 degree. Please remember that refraction will lift an object's apparent location, and that can differ because of atmospheric conditions. There are a number of bizarre atmospheric phenomena that occur at high latitudes such as the Novaya Zemlya effect.

For practical use, such as computing times of sunrise/sunset, it is usual to take the refraction to be 34 minutes of arc and the radius of the Sun's disk to be 16 minutes, so the time of sunrise/sunset is given by the moment that the Sun is 90 degrees 50 minutes from the zenith, which is good enough for much of the world outside of the polar regions.

Solfe
2011-Jun-28, 05:09 AM
Opps. Should I mention that I switch from Civil Engineering to Electrical Engineer Science after a Surveying class? :)

Edit - PS Strange bought it. ;)

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-28, 05:37 AM
That was weird! 30 degrees, huh? And I'm 165 inches tall!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Solfe
2011-Jun-28, 06:02 AM
I like to tell people I am 5'11" but since I am really 5'6", no one will play that game with me. :)

Tog
2011-Jun-28, 06:58 AM
The camera is also up quite high in the video. That will extend the horizon and make direct sunlight possible for the camera, but not the ground below. I watched it a few times looking for shadows from the buildings. Did anyone see any shadows from the buildings?

vasotech
2011-Jun-28, 07:01 AM
So hard to tell if there's shadows with the video moving so fast.

chrlzs
2011-Jun-28, 09:59 AM
So, vasotech, did you just stumble on this fact yourself?

If you brought this from another source or forum where there has probably been a discussion already, it would be polite to mention that. If not, then I'm intrigued as to what sequence of events made you stumble upon this 'anomaly'.

If I get motivated enough to investigate this (and frankly, I think I'll be wasting my time - but if need be I will, and very comprehensively..), the process would be to:
1. Verify the first video, find out how high the camera is and which way it is/was pointing.
2. Determine whether the camera is actually showing a discernible sun disc or whether it is merely an overexposed area of 'blown' pixels.
3. Find out what timeanddate's definiton of sunrise/sunset actually is.
4. Use some independent sources to determine where the sun actually *should* be, at the times shown.

Has anyone done any or all of that? Note that I haven't even looked at the video yet, so this is all wild speculation on my part... (for the moment..) but I have the following comments:

Regarding 1 - the height of the camera makes quite a difference, as does the height of the 'horizon', for obvious reasons..

Regarding 2 - that will be difficult and I will be EXTREMELY surprised if the camera shows a disk rather than just a burnt out area, no matter how little of the sun peeks over the horizon.

Regarding 3 - the definition differs greatly depending on the usage. The difference between 'up' and 'down' could be as wide as the entire sun disc. Some places say it has risen when the first tiny tip of the disc appears, some when the centre appears, some when the entire disc has cleared the horizon.
Plus there is the already-referred-to atmospheric refraction effects, where the image of the sun can be slightly higher or lower than reality.

Regarding 4 - I have a couple of old DOS-based planetarium programs on a sad, never been connected to the internet clunker of a PC. I can happily verify any solar position predictions on them up against Stellarium and the many other independent ways to verify solar position information. (BTW, how long has the camera been there, and are there any archives?)

You can probably tell from my comments regarding item 4 that I have a pretty good idea where this 'claim' is coming from...:sick: What say you, vasotech?

Strange
2011-Jun-28, 10:02 AM
Edit - PS Strange bought it. ;)

Hey, I was just trying to help. And it was the middle of the night. And I wasn't feeling well. And...

(But you got the principle right...)

Strange
2011-Jun-28, 10:07 AM
2. Determine whether the camera is actually showing a discernible sun disc or whether it is merely an overexposed area of 'blown' pixels.

That was my first reaction as well (I should have stuck with that rather than trying to clarify Solfe's explanation!). To me it just looks like an extremely bright area of sky in the direction of the sun, rather than the sun's disk above the horizon.

grapes
2011-Jun-28, 10:22 AM
If you brought this from another source or forum where there has probably been a discussion already, it would be polite to mention that. If not, then I'm intrigued as to what sequence of events made you stumble upon this 'anomaly'.I googled "maswon antarctica sun" and found a zeta site (with a post by Nancy even) on the second page of my results: Earth Changes and the Poleshift (http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3863141%3ABlogPost%3A614142&commentId=3863141%3AComment%3A614739&xg_source=activity)

2. Determine whether the camera is actually showing a discernible sun disc or whether it is merely an overexposed area of 'blown' pixels.
The video still at the zeta site is from June 24 (posted by Recall15), but I think an even better view is about 8 seconds into the video from our OP, see below.

ETA: Howard includes some sun rise time data and gives the source (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=1031&month=6&year=2011&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1). From that webpage's explanation of how they calculate rise times:
The Earth's atmosphere refracts the incoming light in such a way that the Sun is visible longer than it would be without an atmosphere. The refraction depends on the atmospheric pressure and temperature. These calculations use the standard atmospheric pressure of 101.325 kilopascal and temperature of 15C or 59F. A higher atmospheric pressure or lower temperature than the standard means more refraction, and the sunrise will be earlier and sunset later. In most cases, however, this would affect the rising and setting times by less than a minute. Near the North and South Poles it could have greater impact because of low temperatures and the slow rate of the Sun's rising and setting. So, they broke the webpage. :)

I'm impressed, they were very close to finding the explanation.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jun-28, 10:53 AM
I think Tog got a lot of the explanation, the cam is mounted quite high.
Also, as people have mentioned, data are for the sun's center, the upper part of the sun will get above the horizon a couple of days before it technically rises at all.

chrlzs
2011-Jun-28, 11:02 AM
I googled .. and found a zeta site (with a post by Nancy even)
Thanks Grapes! I should have stated earlier who I figured this would have come from. Coz now no-one will believe me when I say - I picked it!! - yes, I figured this would be from nancy and her wobbling-earth-look-out-here-comes-nibiru clan...


The video still at the zeta site is from June 24, but I think an even better view is about 8 seconds into the video from our OP:
Nicely captured. Clearly that camera is being overwhelmed with light in the area in question, so there is no way to determine how much of the sun, if any, is actually above the horizon (indeed without knowing the exposure settings, it could be the Moon - and I'm only *partly* joking about that!)

The small area of 'bleed' on the horizon just above and right of centre suggests that a tiny sliver of sun might be showing, but it is by no means certain. In the meantime, I've quickly checked where the Sun should be, at Mawson at this time of year. When looking due north from Mawson, the uppermost tip (not the whole sun, not even the center) does in fact *just* appear above the horizon for about 30-60 minutes each day. But there is a VERY important point here - from that latitude, the sun is moving along a very shallow arc, so that bright area of dusk/dawn effects will last for a long time. Given the camera is obviously mounted at a very high location, and the horizon appears to be pretty flat, I would say that what is shown is EXACTLY what should be visible at this time of year - namely the topmost tip of the rising Sun just appearing above the horizon for a while..


To present this as 'evidence' of the earth 'wobbling' is just ill-researched sky-is-falling mumbo-jumbo. In fact it is not even ill-researched, it is obviously deliberately being used to mislead - it's reprehensible, and just shows how desperate nancy and her (very few) supporters are. Note I'm not having a go at you, vasotech, but you really should have said where it came from.. And it would be nice if you took this information *back* to whence it originated...

BTW, for any persons who still think there is something to this, please point out what information you dispute and I'll go through how to verify it, step by step. Eg, the information about the Sun's position at any latitude at a given time is available from many open-source, publicly verifiable sources, even historical documents, or you can even work it out mathematically if you are that way inclined...

I would also invite such folks to go look at *any* webcam view of sunrise and sunset, and see if you can actually discern the sun's disk (hint - it would be *very small* and the entire surrounding area of burnt out white pixels shows that the sensor is completely overloaded in that area - there is no chance whatsoever of making it out).

grapes
2011-Jun-28, 11:09 AM
I think Tog got a lot of the explanation, the cam is mounted quite high.In order for even a thirty meter high camera to make a half half degree difference, it would have to be less than seven kilometers from the horizon.

Also, as people have mentioned, data are for the sun's center, the upper part of the sun will get above the horizon a couple of days before it technically rises at all.The website risetimes quoted seems to take that into account--the sun is only described as invisible when it is more than .2 degrees below the horizon. In other words, it seems to count the sun as risen, if it gets above the horizon at all.

However, it does use a standard refraction value, that it admits is not valid at the poles because of the temperature extreme.

The reason my still might be better than theirs is because the sun would be higher, according to that rise time website.

Coldi
2012-Jan-04, 02:40 PM
http://www.krillfacts.org/6-weather-center.html
Here you can find current weather conditions (webcams):Mawson station, Halley Station, Davis Station and weather forecast for South Pole:) It's worth to visit:)

slang
2012-Jan-04, 11:17 PM
http://www.krillfacts.org/6-weather-center.html
Here you can find current weather conditions (webcams):Mawson station, Halley Station, Davis Station and weather forecast for South Pole:) It's worth to visit:)

Heh, thanks. And welcome to BAUT!

chrlzs
2012-Jan-05, 10:26 AM
Just a passing observation - all the information was covered in this thread in some detail, explaining exactly what was shown in the webcam and why.

And yet Vasotech did NOT return, nor acknowledge the effort others made on his behalf, nor concede that the claim is completely and utterly incorrect, nor cite the source from which it originated.

Added - Oops.. I just noticed.. - if Vasotech does return, he better check his responsibilities (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/119324-Nibiru-in-Russian-Media?p=1923717#post1923717) before replying..

Solfe
2012-Jan-05, 12:41 PM
Sure, lets keep bringing up the threads where I am horribly wrong. I had thought this was dead and gone, but on the internet you are wrong forever. ;)

When I answered originally, I had thought this was a misplaced thread and should have been in FAQ, observing or something else. Looking at that link, I think not.

John Mendenhall
2012-Jan-27, 04:06 PM
"The Novaya Zemlya effect is a polar mirage caused by high refraction of sunlight between atmospheric thermoclines. The Novaya Zemlya effect will give the impression that the sun is rising earlier than it actually should (astronomically speaking) and depending on the meteorological situation the effect will present the sun as a line or a square (which is sometimes referred to as the "rectangular sun"), made up of flattened hourglass shapes. The mirage requires rays of sunlight to have an inversion layer for hundreds of kilometres (at least 400 km), and depends on the inversion layer's temperature gradient. The sunlight must bend to the Earth's curvature at least 400 km to allow an elevation rise of 5 degrees for sight of the sun disk.

The first person to record the phenomenon was Gerrit de Veer, a member of Willem Barentsz' ill-fated third expedition into the polar region. Novaya Zemlya, the archipelago where de Veer first observed the phenomenon, lends its name to the effect."

Stumbled across this Wiki article while looking for something completely different!